The ToyBox

Ricardo Bilton & Gloria Sin
Home / News & Blogs / The ToyBox

Adobe strikes back at Apple over iPad/Flash debacle

By | February 3, 2010, 6:04am PST

Summary: We reported recently that Apple CEO Steve Jobs lashed out a bit at Google and Adobe, calling the latter “lazy,” and accusing their Flash software of being a regular culprit when an Apple computer crashes. Well, Adobe has something to say about that.

Apple CEO Steve Jobs recently lashed out a bit at Google and Adobe, calling the latter “lazy,” and accusing their Flash software of being a regular culprit when an Apple computer crashes. Well, Adobe has something to say about that.

It’s not clear what sparked Jobs’ comments, but there was some rampant discussion on the interwebs when it was discovered during Apple’s press event dedicated to the iPad that the tablet device obviously isn’t Flash compatible (see photo above). It became even worse when Apple tried to pretend it did in a promo clip on their website and soon pulled it due to backlash. So perhaps Jobs just wanted to hash out that Flash wasn’t necessary on the new device - or at all.

It’s not pointedly directed back towards Jobs’ comments, but Adobe CTO Kevin Lynch has penned a response about the lack of Flash on a recently announced “magical device.” (Wonder what that could be…)

First, apparently Flash was designed with tablet computers in mind (15 years ago?). But beyond being useful in computer browsers, its also vital to the smartphone market, namely in the upcoming Google Nexus One. (We can definitely see where the lines are being drawn.)

While Lynch concedes that HTML has evolved, particularly with version 5, we won’t be saying goodbye to Flash anytime “in the foreseeable future.”

As for where Flash stands on Apple products? Lynch says they’ve been making progress with the iPhone, developing standalone apps built in Flash, which he says should work on the iPad as well. But apparently it’s Apple who is not cooperating and enabling Flash in their devices’ browsers.

So, who is right and who is wrong? It seems like there are some serious communication problems going on here. Or has this just turned into one big Silicon Valley catfight?

[Image via Engadget]

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “The ToyBox”

Topics

Steve Jobs, Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Tablets, Web Site Development, Notebooks, Web Technology, Hardware, Notebooks & Tablets, Internet, Rachel King

Rachel King is a staff writer for ZDNet based in San Francisco.

Disclosure

Rachel King

Rachel King has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted in this blog.

Biography

Rachel King

Rachel King is a staff writer for CBS Interactive in San Francisco. Before serving as a contributing editor at ZDNet in New York City for two years, she previously worked for The Business Insider, FastCompany.com, CNN's San Francisco bureau and the U.S. Department of State. Rachel has also written for MainStreet.com, Irish America Magazine and the New York Daily News, among others. Rachel has a B.A. in Mass Communications and History from the University of California, Berkeley and a M.S. in Journalism from Columbia University, where she served as art director for the student magazine, Plated.

102
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Adobe strikes back at Apple over iPad/Flash debacle
bsherman_04@... 15th Jun 2010
You need to experience the web Apples way, they know what's best for you. (What are they the government?) I guess since they make the product they can somewhat dictate what people can do with it, however I don't think they're going to be able to strong arm the entire web into conforming to the "Apple way of thinking." Especially since NBC-Time Warner already said no to changing their sites from Flash to HTML5. Which probably means no Hulu support either my friends because NBC is co-owner with FOX. I'd say that might be a reason for Apple to conform and not the other way around. (If they're smart.)


(Personally I think they banned flash because all streaming media sites use it. No flash, no competition for Itunes.)
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
HTML5 is the future. Flash is here today and FREE. H.264 will cost you.
D.T.Schmitz Updated - 3rd Feb 2010
All web developers wish the best outcome for HTML5.

There are many issues to be worked out and HTML5 testing (Youtube) is ongoing.

In the meantime, Adobe is here TODAY with free Flash technology.

Flash is ubiquitous and has become the 'de facto' standard for rich web application content.

Maybe Apple doesn't mind if everyone uses H.264 in HTML5 video, but, given that H.264 is patent encumbered, there are legitimate licensing concerns that potentially might result in users (you) paying the patent license holders a fee for its use in HTML5 which Apple is banking on.

Read Mozilla's take on H.264 here:

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_freedom_a.html

Mozilla won't support H.264 in HTML5 video tags and quite frankly I don't blame them.
0 Votes
+ -
H.264 is free to stream (until 2016, anyway.) [nt]
olePigeon 3rd Feb 2010
[nt]
0 Votes
+ -
Cite your source please.
D.T.Schmitz 3rd Feb 2010
nt
0 Votes
+ -
Would take you about 9 seconds...
WarhavenSC 3rd Feb 2010
Would take you about 9 seconds to google it.

http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/226/n-10-02-02.pdf
0 Votes
+ -
Would have taken the user even less.
D.T.Schmitz 3rd Feb 2010
Those kind of statements should be accompanied by a link.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/03/1528242/MPEG-LA-Extends-H264-Royalty-Free-Period?from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+slashdot%2FeqWf+%28Slashdot%3A+Slashdot%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
0 Votes
+ -
Only free for free content
rlawler 3rd Feb 2010
If you charge for a title (e.g. app) or
subscription a license is required to stream
H.264.
0 Votes
+ -
H.264 is free to stream (until 2016, anyway.)
VFXGirl 3rd Feb 2010
As I understand it, it's like MP3. Which means that the royalty fee will be
built into the compression-decompression software (price). Amortized
across X number of sales, the cost to consumers shouldn't even be
noticeable.
0 Votes
+ -
Yeah right...... maybe in a perfect world
Lerianis10 4th Feb 2010
But we are living in an imperfect one where these things DO have a cost to customers..... lock-in, to name one.
0 Votes
+ -
why cant i use flash in a jail broken phone?
tomatolord 3rd Feb 2010
Why not support one of the jail breakers?

Go underground if you have to.

I would jail break my phone to get flash.
0 Votes
+ -
You'd have to install an alternate browser but you can't
D.T.Schmitz Updated - 3rd Feb 2010
Welcome to Apple vendor lock-in.

I have three browsers and 1 Youtube player on my Nokia N95 smartphone:

o Nokia (webkit)
o Opera Mini
o SkyFire (runs flash)
o Youtube Player

Nokia: No jailbreaking required. Life is good.
0 Votes
+ -
Synthmeister
Synthmeister 3rd Feb 2010
They obviously won't run the abomination otherwise know as Flash, but
there are several other browsers available for the iPhone in the App
store.
Please don't talk about things you haven't actually verified.
0 Votes
+ -
Other browsers? Show me. I am from Missouri
D.T.Schmitz 3rd Feb 2010
nt
0 Votes
+ -
optional browsers
Synthmeister 3rd Feb 2010
If you open up iTunes, type in "Browsers" in the search field, several
browsers show up, both free and paid.

Full Browser, Full Screen Web Browser, Hot Browser and Bolt IE Browser
are a few that show up.
0 Votes
+ -
optional browsers...not really
mike.celone@... 3rd Feb 2010
And everyone of them is just a skin for Safari. There are no optional browsers on a non-jailbroken iPhone.
0 Votes
+ -
Thanks. I could tell the guy had an 'attitude' problem
D.T.Schmitz 3rd Feb 2010
nt
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Adobe strikes back at Apple over iPad/Flash debacle
Brian_Coughter 3rd Feb 2010
I'm tired of this Jesus complex Steve Jobs has. He has to know that 90% of all Apple customers, specifically Mac owners buy Macs to run Adobe's Creative Suite packages. 90% of those customers are also creative professionals. Apple and Adobe have always gone hand-in-hand like coffee and cream. Flash is integral to creative web design because it picks up where HTML 5, JavaScript and CSS3 leave off. The web isn't static anymore. Neither functionally nor creatively. Apple NEEDS to understand that. Apple also needs to understand that they cannot define what the end user wants. If your devices aren't powerful enough to run Flash, make more powerful devices. Eventually, this will come to fruition because the end user will demand it. In case he hasn't noticed, a true iPhone killer isn't far behind and the iPhone wave has to hit shore eventually.
0 Votes
+ -
Adobe CS has nowhere near 90% Mac penetration
comp_indiana 3rd Feb 2010
Adobe began to slide when the pretty much left Apple for dead
around the late 90's, and started releasing for Windows first and Apple
later.

Also, they refused to let Apple use display postscript for OS X (so they
used PDF instead).

Adobe would have died in the 80's had it not been for Mac--Apple
was the only one forward thinking (or demanding enough) to use
Postscript back in those days.

I really get tired of people claiming people use Macs for 'graphics' that
is about 15 years out of date at this point.

Adobe needs to put some serious work into their Mac products, or to
improve flash in some way, but I don't expect either one to happen at
this point.

Adobe needs Apple a lot more than the other way around, wether they
realize it or not.
0 Votes
+ -
PDF?
JLHenry Updated - 3rd Feb 2010
Also, they refused to let Apple use display postscript for OS X (so they used PDF instead).


Uhhh, dude? Adobe originated PDF also . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format

And anyone wanting to publish ANYTHING back then had to use Postscript. I had several programs on my Atari ST that used it . . .

Adobe will be able to survive quite nicely without Apple, thank you very much. But can Apple keep going on without Flash? Who knows?
0 Votes
+ -
Apple would have died had it not been for Adobe
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 3rd Feb 2010
Microsoft and others hand soundly beaten Apple out of almost every other market they tried to enter, the one fortress that Apple managed to cling onto was graphic designers and artists.

If it wasn't for that one safe-haven continuing to fund Apple's existence, they'd have died long ago.

Perhaps Microsoft's 1997 commitment to continue releasing MacOffice for MacOS for a further five years also provided a lifeline to help keep the company afloat?

The iPod provided Apple the cash, marketing vehicle, etc., that has sealed their return from oblivion.

Remember, in 1997, Apple lost over $1Bn. In 1998, they hit their lowest revenues in 7 years and was the third consecutive year of declining annual revenues.

Make no mistake - Apple was VERY close to collapse in the late 90's and was the catalyst for the board's decision to oust Amelio and the return of Jobs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple

Who needs who today is an interesting question. Considering Apple's refusal to port Carbon to x64, forcing Adobe to have to rewrite Photoshop for Cocoa, Apple have not helped one of their primary markets move forward into the world of 64-bit computing.

This has forced A LOT of previously Mac-only companies to use PC's which run Photoshop x64 very well indeed or to Linux & a variety of OSS alternatives (many in-house proprietary apps).

Apple has become a little blase about their markets of late and are aparrently pandering to the consumer masses rather than creating products and platforms that delight core businesses that will be their mainstay should Apple's retail sales/margins drop for whatever reason.

It'll be interesting to see if Jobs' focus on the consumer will be a wise decision long-term.
0 Votes
+ -
And Microsoft wouldn't exist if not for IBM...
zkiwi 3rd Feb 2010
Which all makes your pontificating about Apple's existence or not obvious as the lame red herring it is.
0 Votes
+ -
MS isn't fighting with IBM.
T1Oracle Updated - 4th Feb 2010
Furthermore, they haven't needed them for decades now.
0 Votes
+ -
Interesting issue.
Lester Young 3rd Feb 2010
The prestige of being the system used for high-end media production was one of the big selling points Apple had in the consumer market. I use the past tense because I suspect it is no longer as important to Apple's overall consumer strategy. The meme persists in media world, but the tremendous gains in capability of media production software on the Windows side and the Photoshop x64 issue could give it a real shock. If Apple is relying on the old meme to maintain its position in the professional media space, it's a risky position. On the other hand, the professional media space may no longer be the priority that it once was for Apple.
0 Votes
+ -
Sorry
Synthmeister 3rd Feb 2010
Sorry,
1. Apple has sold around 80 million iPhone/iPod touch devices
without Flash.
2. Flash is a huge resource hog on the Mac
3. Yes Adobe and Apple have history, but not all good. Remember
when Adobe worked really fast to get OS X versions of Photoshop and
Illustrator out the door? Me neither.
4. Remember when Adobe tried to ignore Quicktime and Firewire with
Premiere? I do, and I bought Final Cut instead.
5. Remember when Adobe publicly recommended PCs instead of Macs
for Photoshop after they built their core business on Macs?

Apple owes Adobe no favors and will do whatever it can to make sure
Flash doesn't screw up the Apple mobile user experience.
0 Votes
+ -
You nailed it
comp_indiana 3rd Feb 2010
I could not believe when they PUBLICLY recommended PeeCees, that is
just bizarre for Adobe, of all companies. Talk about ignoring your
history, that was an eye opener.
0 Votes
+ -
It's known as acknowledging reality.
Lester Young 3rd Feb 2010
If one platform supports the x64 version of your media software and the other doesn't, which would you recommend? History doesn't trump current reality. And if loyalty were the issue, wouldn't Apple owe some to Adobe for providing the applications that once kept their platform viable? Apple needed Adobe a lot more than Adobe needed Apple.
0 Votes
+ -
Adobe's had a beef with Apple
frgough 3rd Feb 2010
every since OS X integrated PDF functionality into the OS and eliminated
99% of the need for Acrobat Pro. Apple then shoved a bamboo splint up
Adobe's finger nails by releasing Final Cut Pro and essentially taking
Adobe out of the high-end video processing market in about 15 months.
0 Votes
+ -
You've drunk the Kool-Aid too!
geedavey@... 3rd Feb 2010
As I love to tell all my Mac fanboy designer colleagues, you don't need a Mac to run the Adobe Creative Suite. My $500 Dell ran the Photoshop Gaussian blur filter just as fast as a $2500 Mac. I used the money I saved to buy more stuff.
0 Votes
+ -
Some people do more...
i8thecat 3rd Feb 2010
Than run a Gaussian blur filter... Hollywood, Pixar, Disney, ILM, etc... You know.. the companies that do the really cool stuff (on Macs)... But hey.. if all you do is run a Gaussian blur filter.. then that 500.00 dell is right up yer alley... You go girl!!!

BTW... no way in hell a 500 dell renders faster than any Mac... regardless of RAM... Lie to your wife, lie to your kids... don't lie to me... I've done the work and the Mac always wins by a mile.
0 Votes
+ -
better yet
Linux Geek 3rd Feb 2010
Adobe should prove their flash on jail break iPhones or create their own OS or browser rather than ride on Apple's coat tails.
0 Votes
+ -
There aren't enough of them
comp_indiana 3rd Feb 2010
What is the rate of 'jailbreaking' iPhones in the US? .001%
0 Votes
+ -
Thoughts on Coat Tails
Rob Oakes 3rd Feb 2010
I would hardly say that Adobe is riding Apple's coat tails. Take a look at this piece, here:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/collaboration/?p=1323

Apple has a huge technical debt to Adobe. PostScript, PDF and the font rendering/display technologies at the core of Mac OS X were all Adobe inventions that Apple subsequently licensed. In this case (and many others, such as their taking of the KHTML code for Safari), it's Apple that is riding coat-tails.

With that said, your proposed "solution" isn't really desirable (and even if they did develop it, it is unlikely that Apple would approve it).

Web browsers are highly complicated pieces of programming, even when they are based on a single engine (a la Webkit). They are difficult to develop and very hard to maintain. It would be a huge undertaking on behalf of Adobe to start creating their own browser. It would distract from their other core projects and would provide little benefit to their share holders.

Nor would it be desirable from a developer stand point. While it's known that developers hate IE, it should also be appreciated that developing for multiple browsers (even those that are "standarads compliant") is also a pain. If coding to standards, the code will mostly "just work"; but there are cases where rendering in Firefox versus Safari is slightly off; or how the program behaves in Chrome versus Safari is just different to be problematic. And that is to say nothing of Opera, Flock and the dozens of other browser variants that are cropping up.

I'm sorry, but we do not need another browser war. Four or five main browsers is enough to prompt innovation and to ensure diversity of choice
Too many alternatives is also bad. It requires a huge amount of work by developers for little tangible benefit. At the same time, it results in user confusion.
0 Votes
+ -
Wouldn't that make Apple anti-competitive?
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 3rd Feb 2010
"even if [Adobe] did develop [their own iPhone browser], it is unlikely that Apple would approve it"

Surely that would be Apple deliberately blocking a direct competitor from offering a competing technology, no?

Wouldn't that result in them being investigated and fined for anti-competitive behavior?
0 Votes
+ -
Haven't seen it yet.
medezark@... 3rd Feb 2010
Apple consistently gets away with such behavior. Behavior that would make other, larger, software companies blush with shame.
0 Votes
+ -
Yeah ... just makes you wonder ...
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 3rd Feb 2010
... how strong the JRDF (Jobs Reality Distortion Field) is in D.C.

It shouldn't really matter how large a given market is - if a company operating within that market actively prevents others from competing openly within the law, then that company should be investigated and penalized appropriately.

Microsoft, Intel and many others in the IT industry have udnergone such investigations and paid the price when they've overstepped the mark.

How Apple continues to get away with being the largest and most aggressive player in the Mac/iP___ marketplace and yet get away with shutting down hardware competitors and gating what vendors' apps they're willing to sell to the customer-base is beyond me.
0 Votes
+ -
Clearly it doesn't take much to get beyond you!
matthew_maurice 4th Feb 2010
"How Apple continues to get away with being the largest and most
aggressive player in the Mac/iP___ marketplace and yet get away with
shutting down hardware competitors and gating what vendors' apps
they're willing to sell to the customer-base is beyond me."

Simple, none of those things are illegal.
0 Votes
+ -
It's not a monopoly until Apple controls the market...
nix_hed 5th Feb 2010
...but in iPod's case, it OWNS the market.

I think it's time for Firefox for iPhone/iPod, don't you?
0 Votes
+ -
How'd you figure that?
webmaster@... 5th Feb 2010
How, on God's green earth, do Apple have a competing product to Flash?!
The ONLY Flash competitor out there is your beloved Microsofts
Silverlight, numb-nuts! You are so blinded by the Microsoft brand
Kool-Aid that you have been drinking that you are desperate for the DoJ
to sue for anti-trust like they meanly did to the holiest of holy cults, and
you don't even know what anti-trust is! I don't know why I bother reading
the idiotic rantings of a fanboy...
0 Votes
+ -
why do you need jailbroken device
Rama.NET 3rd Feb 2010
when you have a good number applications available and when you
could develop enterprise class client applications for iPhone easily.
Now you don't have to learn Objective-C and iPhone SDK, Novell
MonoTouch would let you build or port your enterprise class
applications that used .NET to iPhone easily without you have to spend
time in learning the architecture of iPhone. What other reasons you
would need to go in the jailbreaking route unless you want to get
away from Apple's lock-in. The enterprises that adapt iPhone in their
mobile network would not suggest their users to jail break to avoid
support issues. Normal iPhone Users wouldn't because they are
getting whatever they want with iPhone (number of iPhone users
proves this). Only people who jailbreak their iPhones would be the
techie geeks (who could support their iPhone without turning back to
Apple) for fun mostly.

--Ram--
0 Votes
+ -
Why?
rhonin Updated - 3rd Feb 2010
So I can save email attachments, so I can have >1 exchange
account, so I can theme my phone, so I can use editing
software (DocsToGo) to edit my email attachments, so I can
exchange data via USB, so I can multi-task, so I can use my
phone as an emergency tether, so I can...

I could go on and on and on.
I like the iPhone for it's simplistic user interface - it
is great, better when it's jb.

However, if Nexus One (or similar) comes to AT&T, it's
hasta la iPhone....
0 Votes
+ -
So you can be hacked...
i8thecat 3rd Feb 2010
By the same people that wrote the jail breaking software... So they can steal your identity??? So you don't have access to 140,000+ Apps??? So you can't do 1% of all the cool things the rest of the iPhone users can do??? So you can brick your device when you are dumb enough to try a SW update???

Gee.. you are sooooo smart... Not!!!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Adobe strikes back at Apple over iPad/Flash debacle
srozdnet 3rd Feb 2010
If Apple allows Flash on it's devices they would be allowing people to bypass the appstore with standalone apps and music. Ahhh it's not going to happen.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Adobe strikes back at Apple over iPad/Flash debacle
vipub 3rd Feb 2010
I believe Apple has avoided Flash on the iPhone, iTouch, and iPad for four reasons:
1. It is a bit of a resource and memory hog.
2. It does open up security issues.
3. It may not be possible to implement Flash in its current form without multi-tasking.
4. Perhaps most importantly, Flash can be used as a "container" for applications. IF Flash ran on those devices, developers could create content to run within Flash and would not have to release their apps through the App Store.

The last sounds great for developers and users and would almost certainly result in a loss of revenue for Apple. BUT it could also open the door to Flash-based malware.
0 Votes
+ -
In response
dheady@... 3rd Feb 2010
1. Absolutely correct. Flash is a huge resource and memory hog.
2. It opens a security breach you could drive a Mack truck through
and Apple is very picky about security breaches, and Mack trucks
being driven on its products too.
3. Multi tasking already exists in the iPhone OS. It is restricted by
Apple for reason number one above. This also translates into having
to carry a car battery around with jumper cables at hand. And again, I
ask, what are you multi tasking?
4. The iTunes revenue stream is an important part of the Apple
ecosystem for sure, but from the get go you could create a web app
and sell it on your own for the iPhone. The customer just has to go to
your web site in Safari and save the page to the 'desktop' on their
iPhone and voil? a non app store app on your iPhone.
0 Votes
+ -
Are you kidding?
rhonin 3rd Feb 2010
Have you ever opened two windows or tabs or programs and
used info from one into another? or used one as a
reference?

Let's all say "yes we have"....

What would be your take if you could only open one item
at a time on your notebook or desktop?

Heck! - multi tasking is the first thing I turned on!
0 Votes
+ -
And it would also be the first thing you would turn off.
i8thecat 3rd Feb 2010
Once yout battery died after an hour... Multitasking on a device that is small and portable is worthless... The battery life is far more useful because no one wants to charge any device 3 times a day.

I don't understand clowns like you... Have you given it any real thought??? I don't believe you have... What exactly did you want running in the background??? And don't say email because no one cares if you take an extra 5 minutes to respond to their email...
0 Votes
+ -
adobe actively promotes malware
optyk 3rd Feb 2010
adobe actively promote malware with the use of their flash player.

go here to secure flash if you use it...
http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/settings_manager.html

... its the only way to currently secure flash if you use it. apart from uninstalling it.

my personal advice is to not install it in the first place. i haven't had an infection since dumping flash 2 years ago.

on a side note : adobe has refused to support 64bit flash on windows since 2005 (i have found requests on their forum for 64bit flash dating back to 2002 for linux and 2005 for windows). adobe is actively holding back development in this area due to their monopoly of flash.
0 Votes
+ -
Flash is the suxors
bluez34me@... 3rd Feb 2010
I surf the net every day using Firefox and the NoFlash plug-in. It's pretty rare that I allow a site to display Flash content--usually if Flash is required, I just move on to a different site. So I don't see Flash a "necessary" for something like the iPad, though there are some places it might be nice.

And let's face it: Steve is right. Anecdotally, I'd say about 50% of the Safari crashes I see are caused by Flash. Having Flash (a notorious resource hog--it leaks memory like a sieve and CPU cycles like they're going out of style) on a device with a slow processor and a non-removable battery makes no sense. On top of that, Flash's interaction model is ill suited to a touch/multi-touch interface.
0 Votes
+ -
Buy all videos and games from the Apple App Store!
Tom12Tom 3rd Feb 2010
For Steve Jobs:

Free Flash Videos are BAD, because Apple doesn't make any profit from them.

Free Flash Games are BAD, because Apple doesn't make any money from them.

iSheep are supposed to buy all of their media from Apple.
0 Votes
+ -
Games
Synthmeister 3rd Feb 2010
There plenty of dopey, free games in the App store which don't need
flash and Apple still doesn't make any money. Apple doesn't make the big
bucks off apps especially the under $5 game apps and couldn't care less
about Flash-based web games.

If you think Steve Jobs gives a single flying rip about flash-based games
on the internet you really have no clue.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Adobe strikes back at Apple over iPad/Flash debacle
bsherman_04@... 15th Jun 2010
You need to experience the web Apples way, they know what's best for you. (What are they the government?) I guess since they make the product they can somewhat dictate what people can do with it, however I don't think they're going to be able to strong arm the entire web into conforming to the "Apple way of thinking." Especially since NBC-Time Warner already said no to changing their sites from Flash to HTML5. Which probably means no Hulu support either my friends because NBC is co-owner with FOX. I'd say that might be a reason for Apple to conform and not the other way around. (If they're smart.)


(Personally I think they banned flash because all streaming media sites use it. No flash, no competition for Itunes.)

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix